Change the cache size options

[+jimmyreno]

Until 2 years ago few caches were smaller than a 35mm container,

now nano's are popping up everywhere.

I've found enough of those, I think they should have their own size category.

Running queries etc, a person could select those out.

 

Currently we have: micro, small, regular & large,

either have nano, micro, small, regular & large,

or do away with the small or large categories.

 

Large caches are really rare, and many small's are too small for a 2" diameter geocoin,

so I'd say they're really micro's.

[CoyoteRed]

and many small's are too small for a 2" diameter geocoin,

so I'd say they're really micro's.

Bingo. Too many folks are deliberately mislabeling micros as small, I'm guessing, so their caches won't be filtered out from the stigma micros have received. ...or Monkey See, Monkey Do.

[+Geovius]

This topic has been raised quit a many times.

Still I wouln't like to see nano size because it courage people place even more nanos and that is not a good thing. You can almost always place a micro to the place if you want and making cache a nano is not a good way to raise difficulty.

[+Tequila]

This topic has been raised quit a many times.

Still I wouln't like to see nano size because it courage people place even more nanos and that is not a good thing. You can almost always place a micro to the place if you want and making cache a nano is not a good way to raise difficulty.

 

Is it even possible to place more nanos????

 

I doubt creating a nano category would encourage more nano's. Apparently it didn't create more large caches.

[+Knight2000]

Still I wouln't like to see nano size because it courage people place even more nanos and that is not a good thing. You can almost always place a micro to the place if you want and making cache a nano is not a good way to raise difficulty.

Why is having more nanos a bad thing?

 

Why is making a cache a nano not a good way to raise difficulty? This sounds like a matter of opinion.

 

What is lacking is creativity.

[Mushtang]

Instead of more categories to describe the cache before I hunt for it, I'd prefer fewer. I'd think that 2 sizes would be perfect: Can hold trade items, Cannot hold trade items.

 

The more you force people to define a cache as they're setting up the cache page the less mystery there is on the hunt. If someone would like to tell you they have a nano container they're free to do so in the description. That's true for any other aspect of the hide.

 

I'd hate to see categories for size keep getting more specific, and then someone will ask for hide techniques to be a category, and so on, and so on.

[+Kit Fox]

Until 2 years ago few caches were smaller than a 35mm container,

now nano's are popping up everywhere.

I've found enough of those, I think they should have their own size category.

Running queries etc, a person could select those out.

 

Currently we have: micro, small, regular & large,

either have nano, micro, small, regular & large,

or do away with the small or large categories.

 

Large caches are really rare, and many small's are too small for a 2" diameter geocoin,

so I'd say they're really micro's.

 

Those that run this site have spoken against the nano category, "There is no need for a nano type. As mentioned above the Micro type includes nanos. It also includes picos. even the atto (10 to the -18) would be covered by Micro. At some point there has to be a cap on types. The Micro was a good point to stop. "

 

Add another cache size to selection

 

Feature request: Nano cache size, Smaller than micro

 

Nano Caches why is there not a new size on the website for nano sized caches

 

Feature Request: Nano size option Discussion on adding nano to the size options for listing

 

Nano cache category

 

Enhancement Request - New Cache Size NANO

 

 

Instead of more categories to describe the cache before I hunt for it, I'd prefer fewer. I'd think that 2 sizes would be perfect: Can hold trade items, Cannot hold trade items.

 

The more you force people to define a cache as they're setting up the cache page the less mystery there is on the hunt. If someone would like to tell you they have a nano container they're free to do so in the description. That's true for any other aspect of the hide.

 

I'd hate to see categories for size keep getting more specific, and then someone will ask for hide techniques to be a category, and so on, and so on.

 

After giving your idea some thought, I actually like it.

[crawil]

Instead of more categories to describe the cache before I hunt for it, I'd prefer fewer. I'd think that 2 sizes would be perfect: Can hold trade items, Cannot hold trade items.

 

The more you force people to define a cache as they're setting up the cache page the less mystery there is on the hunt. If someone would like to tell you they have a nano container they're free to do so in the description. That's true for any other aspect of the hide.

 

I'd hate to see categories for size keep getting more specific, and then someone will ask for hide techniques to be a category, and so on, and so on.

I like this idea, too. Mushtang, you may be onto something!

[+StaticTank]

I believe that the size categories are just fine the way it is. A "Nano" is really just another type of container (like ammo can) and not an actual size.

 

StaticTank

[+jimmyreno]

The more you force people to define a cache as they're setting up the cache page the less mystery there is on the hunt.

Cache placers are NOT REQUIRED to state the size of the container, they already have the option of leaving it a mystery.

 

I don't care if others want to place or look for nano's, I only want to take myself OUT of that game.

 

In the real world finding them is a farce, someone looks for 2 minutes, then takes out their cell phone and asks someone "where is it".

That's not hard.

Edited April 2, 2009 by jimmyreno